The Accuracy of Detecting Diabetic Retinopathy Using Panoptic Ophthalmoscope by Primary Care Doctors At Klinik Kesihatan Sendayan
Keywords:
medicalAbstract
Diabetic Retinopathy (DR) is a microvascular complications of diabetes that may lead to blindness. The prevalence is increasing which demands early detection to prevent further deterioration of retinopathy. However, the gold standard fundus camera is not widely available in primary care. This study assesses the accuracy of PanOptic Opthalmoscope (PO) as a screening tool for DR at primary care level. A cross-sectional study on 66 diabetes patients were enrolled via systematic random sampling. Sample size was calculated using PASS software and OpenEpi method. PO and fundus camera were done on the same day with DR screening. PO were done among six primary care doctors. Fundus camera photo was interpreted by the Ophthalmologist as gold standard. Both findings were compared and analysed. PO has low accuracy (53%) in detecting DR.The sensitivity and specificity of DR detection was 10.3 % and 86.5% respectively. The positive predictive value (PPV) was 37.5% and negative predictive value (NPV) was 55.2%. The accuracy of Sight threatening abnormalities (STA) was 75.8%. The sensitivity and specificity of STA were 35.3% and 89.8%, respectively. The PPV was 54.4% and NPV was 80%. The prevalence of newly diagnosed DR was 43.9%, while prevalence of STA was 25.8%. DR is significantly associated with patients living with diabetes for more than 10 years (p = 0.007). The accuracy of PO in DR screening is poor, but it is modestly acceptable for STA detection. However, the sensitivity and PPV is low, causing some serious retinopathy cases undetected. The prevalence of DR is higher with increasing duration of diabetes. We recommend the availability of fundus camera in primary care setting.References
World Health Organization (WHO), Fact Sheets: Diabetes. 2018
National Institute of Health (NIH) Malaysia. The National Health and morbidity survey (NHMS) NCDs-Non-Communicable Diseases: Risk factors and other health problems. National Institute of Health.Selangor. 2019.
National Institute of Health (NIH) Malaysia. The Thirds National Health and morbidity survey (NHMS III) 2006.
Ministry of Health (MOH) Malaysia Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Team. Diabetic retinopathy screening, Training module for healthcare providers. Second edition. Ministry of Health Malaysia. 2017.
Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) secretariat. Screening of Diabetic Retinopathy. Putrajaya: Medical Development Division; 2011.
Clinical Practice guidelines (CPG) secretariat, Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. 5th Edition.Putrajaya: Medical Development Division; 2015.
Pin GP, Salowi MA, Adnan TH, Sa’at N, The 8th Report of the National Eye Database 2014. National Eye Database(NED); Selangor, 2016.
National Diabetes Registry (NDR) Report 2020, Disease Control Division, Ministry of Health Malaysia. Putrajaya.
Bourne RR, Stevens GA, White RA, Smith JL, Flaxman SR, Price H, Jonas JB, Keeffe J, Leasher J, Naidoo K, Pesudovs K, Resnikoff S, Taylor HR. Vision Loss Expert Group. Causes of vision loss worldwide,1990-2010: A systematic analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2013.
Zhang X, Low S, Kumari N, Wang J, Ang K, Yeo D, et al. Direct medical cost associated with diabetic retinopathy severity in Type 2 Diabetes in Singapore.2017
Zheng Y, He M, Congdon N. The worldwide epidemic of diabetic retinopathy. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2012.
Zhang P, Zhang X, Brown JB, Vistisen D, Sicree RA, Shaw J, et al. Economic impact of diabetes.IDF Diabetes Atlas. 4th ed. Brussels: International Diabetes Federation; 2010.
Fenwick E, Rees G, Pesudovs K, Dirani M, Kawasaki R, Wong TY, et al. Social and emotional impact of diabetic retinopathy: A review. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol. 2012;40:27–38.
Chua J,Lim CXY, Wong TY,Sabanayagam C, Diabetic retinopathy in Asia-pacific,Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (PHila),2018 Jan-Feb;7(1):3-16
Jayne E McComiskie, Panoptic versus conventional ophthalmoscope, Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology 2004; 32: 238–242
I Tajunisah,H Nabilah, S C Reddy,Prevalence and Risk Factors for Diabetic Retinopathy-A study of 217 patients from University of Malaysia Medical Center. Med J Malaysia. 2006 October; 61(4).
I Tajunisah, PS Wong, LT Tan, et al, Awareness of eye complications and prevalence of retinopathy in the first visit to eye clinic among type 2 diabetic patients.Int J Ophthalmol.2014;4(5):519-524.
Maziah I, Ahmad N, Norashikin M et al, Study on Prevalence of Diabetic retinopathy at Health clinic setting (Klinik Kesihatan Cheneh, Kemaman). Proceedings of the scientific conference Jabatan Kesihatan Negeri Terengganu; 2009.
Kamilah K, Zamsurina A, Anita I, et al. A study of Diabetic Retinopathy on Diabetic Patient Attendings Fundus Camera at KK Hiliran, Proceedings of the Scientific Conference Jabatan Kesihatan Negeri Terengganu, 2009.
Keah SH, Chng KS. Prevalence of diabetic retinopathy in a primary care setting using digital retinal imaging technology. Malaysian Family Physician. 2006;1(1):19-22
National Diabetes Registry (NDR) Report 2020, Disease Control Division, Ministry of Health Malaysia.
Mallika PS, Lee PY, Cheah WL, Wong JS, Syed Alwi SAR, Nor Hayati H, Tan AK. Risk factors for diabetic retinopathy in diabetics screened using fundus photography at a primary health care setting in East Malaysia. Malaysian Family Physician. 2011;6(2&3):60-65
Masliza H,Nani Draman, Wan M.I.W et al. Predictors of proliferative diabetic retinopathy among patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Malaysia as detected by fundus photography. Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences.2016;11 (4): 353-358
Ahmed RA, Khalil SN, Al-Qahtani MA. Diabetic retinopathy and the associated risk factors in diabetes type 2 patients in Abh. Saudi Arabia. J Family Community Med. 2016;23(1):18–24.
Lima VC, Cavalieri GC, Lima MC, Nazario NO, Lima GC. Risk factors for diabetic retinopathy: a case-control study. Int J Retina Vitreous. 2016
National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Management of Type 2 diabetes. Retinopathy - screening and early management. London: NICE Inherited Clinical Guideline E. 2002.
Ministry of Health Malaysia (1997), Diabetes info series 1, Kuala Lumpur.
Hutchinson A. McIntosh A. Peters J. O’Keeffe C. et al. Effective of screening and monitoring tests for diabetic retinopathy-a systemic review. Diabetes UK.Diabetic Medicine 2000;17:495-506.
Harding SP, Broadbent DM, Neoh C, White MC,Vora J. Sensitivity and specificity of photography and direct ophthalmoscopy in screening for sight threatening eye disease: the Liverpool diabetic eye study, BMJ 1995;311:1131-5.
O’Hare JP, Hopper A, Madhaven C,Charny M, Purewal TS,Harney B,Griffiths J, Adding retinal photography to screening for diabeticretinopathy : a prospective study in primary care, BMJ 1996;312:679-82
Lopez-Bastida J,Cabrera-Lopez F,Serrano-Aguilar P, Sensitivity and specificity of digital retinal imaging for screening diabetic retinopathy, Diabetes UK, Diabetic Medicine, 2007;24:403-407.
Griffith SP, Freeman Wl, Shaw CJ, Mitchell WH,Olden CR,FIggs,LD. et al. Screening for diabetic retinopathy in clinical setting : A comparison of direct ophthalmoscopy by primary care physician with fundus photography, J Fam Pract 1993;37 (1) :49-56
Gill JM,Cole,DM,Lwbowits HM, Diamond JJ. Accuracy of Screening for Diabetic Retinopathy by Family Physicians. Ann Fam Med 2004;2(3):218-220.
McComiskie JE, Greer RM, Cole GA. Panoptic versus conventional ophthalmoscope, Clinical and experimental ophthalmology 2004;32:238-242.
Ministry of Health Malaysia (1999),Health Technology Assessment Report : Screening for Diabetic retinopathy, Health Technology Assessment Unit, Medical Development Division, Ministry of Health Malaysia, 1999.
Tan AK, Mallika PS, Aziz S, Asokumaran T, Intan G, Faridah HA. Comparison between the panoptic ophthalmoscope and the conventional direct ophthalmoscope in the detection of sight threatening diabetic retinopathy: the Kuching diabetic eye study. Malaysian Family Physician. 2010;5(2):83-90
Pejabat Kesihatan Daerah Seremban (2019), Rekod Beban Kerja Klinik Kesihatan Sendayan.
Klinik Kesihatan Sendayan (2019),Buku kedatangan pesakit Hypertensi dan Diabetes . Klinik Kesihatan Sendayan, 2019.
National Diabetic Registry Malaysia (2019) Number of Active cases in Klinik Kesihatan Sendayan. Diabetes Clinical Audit Registry.
Bujang MA, Adnan TH. Requirements for Minimum Sample Size for Sensitivity and Specificity Analysis. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016 Oct;10(10):YE01-YE06.
Kelsey et al.,Methods in Observational Epidemiology 2nd Edition, Table 12-15 Fleiss, Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions, formulas 3.18 & 3.19https://www.openepi.com/SampleSize/SSCohort.htm
Tropicamide: Indication, Dosage, Side Effect, Precaution | MIMS.com Malaysia https://www.mims.com/malaysia/drug/info/tropicamide?mtype=generic
Garis panduan operasi fasiliti kesihatan primer pasca perintah kawalan pergerakan ,no 5. Rawatan pesakit Luar- Funduskopi menggunakan Fundus Camera, (Pindaan 1/2020), Bahagian PEmbanguna Kesihatan keluarga, Kementerian Kesihatan Malaysia,2020, p.12.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
JBCS Publication Ethics
JBCS is committed to ensure the publication process follows specific academic ethics. Hence, Authors, Reviewers and Editors are required to conform to standards of ethical guidelines.
Authors
Authors should discuss objectively the significance of research work, technical detail and relevant references to enable others to replicate the experiments. JBCS do not accept fraudulent or inaccurate statements that may constitute towards unethical conduct.
Authors should ensure the originality of their works. In cases where the work and/or words of others have been used, appropriate acknowledgements should be made. JBCS do not accept plagiarism in all forms that constitute towards unethical publishing of an article.
This includes simultaneous submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal. Corresponding author is responsible for the full consensus of all co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Reviewers
Reviewers of JBCS treat manuscripts received for review as confidential documents. Therefore, Reviewers must ensure the confidentiality and should not use privileged information and/or ideas obtained through peer review for personal advantage.
Reviews should be conducted based on academic merit and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments. In cases where selected Reviewer feels unqualified to review a manuscript, Reviewer should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process in TWO (2) weeks time from the review offer is made.
In any reasonable circumstances, Reviewers should not consider to evaluate manuscripts if they have conflicts of interest (i.e: competitive, collaborative and/or other connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions affiliated to the papers).
Editors
Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively based on their academic merit. JBCS strictly do not allow editors to use unpublished information of authors without the written consent of the author. Editors are required to take appropriate responsive actions if ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Journal of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences requires authors to declare all competing interests in relation to their work. All submitted manuscripts must include a ‘competing interests section at the end of the manuscript listing all competing interests (financial and non-financial). Where authors have no competing interests, the statement should read ,The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. Editors may ask for further information relating to competing interests.
Editors and reviewers are also required to declare any competing interests and will be excluded from the peer review process if a competing interest exists. Competing interests may be financial or non-financial. A competing interest exists when the authors interpretation of data or presentation of information may be influenced by their personal or financial relationship with other people or organizations. Authors should disclose any financial competing interests but also any non-financial competing interests that may cause them embarrassment if they were to become public after the publication of the article.
HUMAN AND ANIMAL RIGHTS
All research must have been carried out within an appropriate ethical framework. If there is suspicion that work has not taken place within an appropriate ethical framework, Editors will follow the Misconduct policy and may reject the manuscript, and/or contact the author(s) institution or ethics committee. On rare occasions, if the Editor has serious concerns about the ethics of a study, the manuscript may be rejected on ethical grounds, even if approval from an ethics committee has been obtained.
Research involving human subjects, human material, or human data, must have been performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and must have been approved by an appropriate ethics committee. A statement detailing this, including the name of the ethics committee and the reference number where appropriate, must appear in all manuscripts reporting such research. Further information and documentation to support this should be made available to Editors on request.
Experimental research on vertebrates or any regulated invertebrates must comply with institutional, national, or international guidelines, and where available should have been approved by an appropriate ethics committee. The Basel Declaration outlines fundamental principles to adhere to when conducting research in animals and the International Council for Laboratory Animal Science (ICLAS) has also published ethical guidelines.
A statement detailing compliance with relevant guidelines (e.g. the revised Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 in the UK and Directive 2010/63/EU in Europe) and/or ethical approval (including the name of the ethics committee and the reference number where appropriate) must be included in the manuscript. The Editor will take account of animal welfare issues and reserves the right to reject a manuscript, especially if the research involves protocols that are inconsistent with commonly accepted norms of animal research. In rare cases, Editors may contact the ethics committee for further information.
INFORMED CONSENT
For all research involving human subjects, informed consent to participate in the study should be obtained from participants (or their parent or guardian in the case of children under 16) and a statement to this effect should appear in the manuscript, this includes to all manuscripts that include details, images, or videos relating to individual participants.
DATA SHARING POLICY
JBCS strongly encourages that all datasets on which the conclusions of the paper rely should be available to readers. We encourage authors to ensure that their datasets are either deposited in publicly available repositories (where available and appropriate) or presented in the main manuscript or additional supporting files, in machine-readable format (such as spreadsheets rather than PDFs) whenever possible
Authors who do not wish to share their data must state that data will not be shared, and give the reason.
COPYRIGHT NOTICE
The JBCS retains the copyright of published manuscripts under the terms of the Copyright Transfer Agreement. However, the journal permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided permission to reuse, distribute and reproduce is obtained from the Journal's Editor and the original work is properly cited.
While the advice and information in this journal are believed to be true and accurate on the date of its going to press, neither the authors, the editors, nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for any errors or omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein.
Copyright (c) 2023 Journal of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences (JBCS)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
